Seelive

Only Jupiter and Uranus are evening objects at the moment and they will both have set by 9:30.  All the other planets are currently morning objects rising just before dawn.

Looks not unlike a RJ45 to RJ12 cable, SW handset to mount perhaps?

Good old fashioned IRIS can blink between images at a rate set by the user.  Free and probably still downloadable.

Oh the joys of SMDs, too small for the true part number to fit so they label them with a unique manufacturers code instead.

The last V4 version can be found at:

https://github.com/deepskystacker/DSS/releases/tag/4.2.6

I have also downloaded the even earlier V4.1.1 (which was the last version that used DCRAW so I could reprocess some of my old legacy data) whilst also still retaining V4.2.6...and I won't be going for V5 until I upgrade from my current Win 7 PC (and only then when it is stable).

All the older versions of DSS are still available. When you download them ensure you select a directory of your choosing rather than the default one then you can run multiple versions on the same PC rather than overwriting the last version.

Is that the DSS Live version?  Perhaps you've opened the wrong DSS.exe?

I initially had the same problem with V2.  Do a search for the missing dll file. I found it in several directories on my PC so I just copied one of them and pasted it into the StarNet directory and hey-presto!

From your description I take it you are not guiding so then I can only assume that your exposure time is dependant upon the accuracy of your polar alignment.  So how do you polar align?  If you're using a polarscope with the mount just set in the home position then a wobbly counterweight won't make any difference.  If the polar alignment requires slewing the mount then a wobbly counterweight could affect the position of the scope in certain orientations if you have backlash or stiction in one or more axes which could then affect the polar alignment calculations.

2 hours ago, pipnina said:

I live in one of the few places in England with hills (Plymouth)...

Really? There seems to be many places with hills in my part of the UK.

23 minutes ago, AndrewRrrrrr said:

a nifty fifty does look good but think it turns into an nifty eighty on an aps-c sensor. 

Not sure how wide field you want to go but the Canon nifty fifty nicely frames the whole of Orion on an APS-C sensor for example.

I use a similar one for my Canon 200D but I have housed the mains PSU in a waterproof box just to avoid problems with damp.

There are meteorological clear skies and astronomical clear skies, the two are not the same 😆

13 minutes ago, fortytwo said:

Hi Seelive,

That fixed it, I tried bicubic first which was better but still not perfect and then bilinear which was perfect.

I don't really understand what the difference is but at least it worked.

Thankyou both for the advice.

Cheers,

Jeff

Glad it worked. I've had the same problem in the past with widefield images with lots of stars and it's a  problem quite often brought up on the DSS forum. I'm sure there are many people on this site who will be more than willing to explain why! 😊 

Try changing the alignment mode from Automatic (or Bicubic) to one of the other options (Bilinear or Bisquare? - off the top of my head I can't recall their exact names)

2 hours ago, Ratlet said:

.... I can't imagine it'll break the camera....

Famous last words! The USB 2 standard allows for up to 2.5 Watts of power, not much for a dew heater. Most USB dew heaters are designed to powered from a USB power port that can supply far more power. I guess it will depend how well the camera USB hub is designed to cope with an excessive load before it fries.  Perhaps the camera user guide mentions the power available from the hub ports? You can then compare it with the power requirement of the dew heater to see how they match up.

With your native FL of 1500mm you're probably already oversampling at 1x1 binning with the 4.63um pixels of the 294.  Going to to the 3.76um pixels of the 533 or the 2.4um pixels of the 183 will just make things worse (check the Astronomy Tools pixel size calculator page to get an idea of the optimum pixel size for your scope). Probably best to use 2x2 binning with your 294 and as @ONIKKINEN suggests, just crop your images.

10 hours ago, Adam J said:

 

So 10dB = 1:10 

20dB = 1:100

30dB = 1:1000

40dB = 1:10000

So not sure how you are getting 1:100? 

 

 

Only if you're using 10log(R) instead of 20log(R)

I assume they are measuring SNR in terms of the ratio of straight ADU units rather than the power ratio so 40dB would be just 1:100, much more believeable.

2 hours ago, TheThing said:

... Think a MM5.5 would be perfect but can't find them anywhere ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not suprised, I've never come across one either!.  Usually SW threads are a standard metric sizes or they could at a push be American  UNC (or UNF). I very much doubt they would be Imperial BA, BSF or Whitworth (although a 1/4" Whitworth bolt will screw in a 1/4" UNC nut)

Most 'cheap' 5.5 x 2.1 connectors are almost certainly at the low end of the market with no specified current handing capability. At least purchasing from a reputable company you will get some certainty in what you are buying as at least they have datasheet describing the operational specifications. Typical cheap 5.5 x 2.1 connectors only have a current carrying capability of 0.5A to 1A but some of the more expensive versions have up to 5A capability.

Years ago I couldn't find anything to do it either so created my own Excel spreadsheet using VBA to do it but it currently only reads PIC image files (IRIS images), rather than TIF or FIT image files. It was designed to calculate and save the statistics of each image (max, min, mean, median, standard deviation, background noise and histogram peak ADU values). Perhaps there are more versatile astro-imaging packages available these days.

5 hours ago, bb453 said:

I do believe that they were, I will try either side of the meridian next time and see if that helps

I doubt it, only use stars on different sides of the meridian to the target if you do 3 star alignment. I've always found 2 star alignment on the same side of the meridan as the target works better than 3 star alignment involving a meridian flip. And as @cosmic Geoff stated above, try to choose 1 of the alignment stars (ideally the first) near to the target.

Were both the alignment stars you used on the same side of the meridian as M31?

On an unguided mount (but assuming still driven) I would go for the 50mm f1.8 and avoid the zoom lenses.  NGC7000 is quite big so will still show up clearly. Unguided the exposures will need to be fairly short and if it's the Canon 'nifty fifty' I would stop it down to at least F2.8. This is one of my first ever astro images taken several years ago and poorly processed, 30 x 60sec on a homemade tracking (but unguided mount), unmodded Canon 200D with 50mm f1.8 lens at f2.8, ISO 1600.